Your question seems to run distinct things together. For instance, you ask us to imagine several events happening simultaneously. So the first thought...
No, that's question begging. Yes, of course I can imagine my body not existing. And most would agree that my body's existence is contingent. But that ...
When Reason herself seems either to express a conviction that they are true, or a doubt about the matter, or seems to favour 'us' being doubtful about...
If you are asking what I think 'metaphysically' impossible, or 'metaphysically' possible mean, then I do not know. That's my whole point. I think they...
Yes, er, that's MY point - I cannot conceive of not existing. I cannot imagine it. But clearly that does not mean that I exist of necessity. So 'incon...
I do not know what you mean. I am talking at a conceptual level. Goodness and 'getting what you want' are not equivalent. Sometimes it is good to get ...
I was not 'trying' to say something, I 'did' say that this world is maximally good. I was then trying to figure out what 'you' might have meant by 'be...
That isn't what I said at all. The world is maximally good. That doesn't mean everyone gets what they want. It depends what you want. Some things one ...
how could it be an actual world? Wouldn't that be equivalent to saying that it 'is' the case rather than it is possibly the case? (No doubt what is ac...
Not if you deserve to eat nasty tasting shit. Then a world in which shit tasted good and was nutritious would be a world in which you do not get what ...
It is not the 'one making the claim' who has the burden of proof (that is something those with no expertise but big mouths say on youtube videos). Con...
I do not know what that means. To be clear, I accept that it is true that a true proposition is not also false (the law of non-contradiction). But I d...
No, that isn't what it means at all. Again: I can imagine my body not existing, but I seem unable to imagine that 'I' - the one doing the imagining - ...
Well, I just think both claims are false. People would not make mistakes in mental arithmetic if they were incapable of imagining the sum equally some...
Yes, but we were talking about what metaphysically possibility might be, and you offered that. So now you're just being disingenuous. I didn't detect ...
No, I am just saying what the present moment is made of - that is, I am saying what the property of presentness is. There's what is present, and there...
No, that wasn't a definition of the present moment. The person who wrote it was just saying what I'd already said, namely that if time is a kind of so...
How would that show it to fall apart? My view is that what's true is true, and that 'contingently' true and 'necessarily' true denote nothing extra. S...
I wouldn't define it like that, as those definitions are circular (given that to say that 'it is the time of consciousness' is equivalent to saying it...
That too was a joke, yes? I think I am getting the hang of it. Dissecting a joke takes something that might - or might not - have had some potential l...
How? For example, is this a joke? "I don't know about you guys, but I live in a square-circular house. I can look at it in a mirror anytime I want" Pr...
Question begging. If reality is as you think it is - and I take it that you think time is some kind of a stuff - then your experience of the live feed...
But it can't involve 'no perceiving' (that's a contradiction). For the question is 'what it would take' for us to be perceiving the present moment. If...
The present moment is 'now' - the problem, as I see it, is that if time is an objective material, then the experiences you have in the present moment ...
That's not my view. That's what a 'time as soup' view would imply. But as I said in the OP, I think it's baloney precisely because it has that upshot....
it is by separating the two that one sees that we are subject to an illusion of the presentness of things, given a certain view about the nature of ti...
I am not following you. Presentism is, as I understand it (and I am not at all sure I do), the view that only those things that have presentness actua...
I don't see how the view I have expressed is 'presentism'. I am not making a claim about what exists (which is what I understand presentism to be), bu...
Who? And how would that answer go? I mean this: just sounds like Krishnamurti nonsense. It is a) not, by any stretch of the imagination, the 'real' qu...
I fail to see why not. My experience represents its objects to be present. So, for it to be accurate they would need actually to be present. Yet on th...
No, not 'of course'. The opposite: of course we experience the present, not an illusion of the present. Make the adjustments necessary. And 'of course...
I think you're all thinking about matters in quite the wrong way. It is a basic principle of investigation, first articulated by Aristotle, that you '...
This is just clearly false. We can easily imagine sums equalling numbers distinct from those they actually equal - that's what's happening when people...
That makes no sense at all. Nor does that. If - if - our experiences lag behind the reality they are giving us an experience of, then we are subject t...
I am asking about what I am asking about - read the OP. Another person who thinks philosophy is about defining things. Get a dictionary and solve all ...
Comments